hudson@falcon.nrl.navy.mil (Dan Hudson) (11/07/90)
Is there a weakness in the system? Please excuse any slight inaccuracies; I'm going for concept, not specifics... Since we read rec.audio.high-end, I assume it is more than a passing interest among us to create the most <musical> experience possible within our homes. Along these lines, we have gone to great lengths to assemble an audio system to perform this function. Part of the fun of high-end audio is planning the "ideal" system. I know I pour over back issues of Stereophile and Absolute Sound, weighing the pros and cons of Divas vs 801s and Audio Research vs Krell. But unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of choosing between such thoroughbred pieces of equipment. For those of us with a limited budget (me!), deciding which components to purchase is an agonizing decision. "How much should I spend on speakers?" "Electrostatic or Dynamic?" "Solid-State, Tube or Hybrid?" It's enough to drive a guy crazy! It is here that services like this newsgroup and the high-end publications provide an invaluable service. It gives us the opportunity to help one another assemble a system that will best satisfy our individual tastes while providing the most "bang for the buck". But of late, I perceive a possible weakness in the system. Unfortunately, I think we've created a barrier that prevents us from considering many components that might offer a good "bang for the buck" ratio. I find it both refreshing and disturbing that some of the "cheaper" components reviewed in Stereophile recently (the new ADCOM pre-amp and the ROTEL CD player come to mind) offer Class-B performance at a cost well under $1000! When I see components in this price range offering performance comparable with the "big boys", I start to wonder what else I might be missing, simply because we fail to consider it. As an example, consider this... Might it be possible that in, say, the $500 to $750 range, a company considered "mid-fi" in most cases by the average audiophile, such as Onkyo, <might> offer a product comparable, or even superior, to a "vanilla" high-end component like the highly thought of Creek integrated amp? If smaller companies, like ADCOM and ROTEL, can produce components which impress the critical ears of our valued Stereophile editors way beyond what their price tags would otherwise indicate, is it so unlikely that a major "mid-fi" company might not produce a superior product, even occasionally? I think we all really need to step back, take a few moments, and check out some equipment that we otherwise would write-off. Perish the thought, but this might even require a visit to Circuit City... Any comments? Dan Hudson hudson@falcon.nrl.navy.mil
marcelg@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Marcel Goudeseune) (11/07/90)
As one example of a company that makes incredibly good components that won't cost you your house, may I suggest NAD? They've been around for a little over 10 years, and produce some of the best hifi components I've seen around. One example, the integrated amp I just bought: NAD 3100 integrated amp 50 WPC @ 0.03% THD 6 dB dynamic headroom ( = 200 WPC ) bridgeable to mono, 100 WPC, 500 W with headroom. I forget the specs on the preamp part of it (there's lots), but you get the idea. Plus, I picked it up for only $600 CDN. I'm happy. One more tidbit about NAD: In '87 or so, their 3020 integrated amp became the most popular amp in history: 600 000 units sold, and it's still in production. Well, that's my advertising blurb for today. -- Marcel Goudeseune | I don't ever want to play the part marcelg@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca | Of a statistic on a goverment chart. -The Police
mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) (11/09/90)
I have to put in my two cents' worth now. It scares me to see the names Adcom and Rotel in the same sentence. It's kind of like Mercedes and Ford. As for the NAD integrated amp, if you like a deep, tight bass, the NAD won't do it. I've compared all the NADs vs. all the Adcoms vs all the Denons vs all the Yamahas vs all the Nakamichis (amps, that is). All these companies make "mid-fi" equipment. The NAD was tied with the Yamaha for last place in bass control. I did find that their higher-end models were smoother on the top than the Adcom, but it was minor comparted the Adcom's superior bass control and imaging. So you know, I sell these things for a living. Most of my listening tests are conducted through various Acoustat electrostatic loudspeakers, using either a Yamaha CDX-1130 w/Meridian 203 DAC or an Oracle Delphi Mk III w/ MC Alpha II cartridge. I use a Conrad-Johnson PV-11 tube preamp, Monster Cable M-1 speaker cable, and M-1000 interconnects throughout the system. Also, if you can afford the extra money, it's worth it to stay with an American amplifier and preamplifier. There is no comparison. (yes, I know that NAD and Adcom, though American companies, are built in Asia) 'tis all for now... MikeC
biswa%galileo.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) (11/13/90)
In article <7537@uwm.edu> mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) writes: >I have to put in my two cents' worth now. It scares me to see the names >Adcom and Rotel in the same sentence. It's kind of like Mercedes and Ford. > I would be interested in why. To me, it's more like comparing a Dodge Colt and a Mitsubishi Mirage. Consider that Adcom is designed in teh U.S. and assembled in Taiwan. Rotel is designed in the U.K., and assembled in Taiwan. Parts quality is about the same on their lower models (i.e., Adcom has better parts in their 565 preamp, but the other models use the same kinds of parts as the Rotels). The Rotel preamps and amps are very solidly built with good parts quality, and to my ears, good neutral sound. Ditto for the Adcom. The Rotel preamp/tuner, on the other hand, seemed really chintzy. One consumer's opinion... -Biswa Ghosh